Envisages of new product developments in small and medium

Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Dhaka, Bangladesh, January 9 – 10, 2010

Envisages of New Product Developments in Small and Medium Enterprises through Virtual Team Nader Ale Ebrahim 1, Shamsuddin Ahmed and Zahari Taha Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya 50603 Lembah Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Abstract New product development (NPD) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) virtual team has not been systematically investigated in developing countries. Literatures have shown no significant differences between traditional NPD and virtual NPD in general. New product development especially for SMEs virtual team are somewhat lacking in the literature and constitute a research gap. This paper aims to bridge this gap. This study first reviews the NPD and its relationship with virtuality and then identifies the critical factors in definition of NPD in SMEs virtual team. The statistical method was utilized to perform the required analysis of the data from survey. The results are achieved through factor analysis at the perspective of NPD in some of Malaysian and Iranian manufacturing firms. The 20 new product development factors were grouped into five higher level constructs. It gives valuable insight and guidelines which hopefully will help managers of firms in developing countries to consider the main factors in NPD.

Keywords Survey Finding, New Product Development, Factor Analysis, Virtual Team

1-Introduction The product life cycle grows shorter every year and the customer demand dramatically increased. With the needs to respond quickly to dynamic customer needs, increased complexity of product design and rapidly changing technologies, the selection of the right set of NPD is critical to a company's long-term success [1]. Obviously, the situation will be even more severe for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) than for large organizations, because of SMEs’ limited financial and technical capability [2]. Virtuality has been presented as one solution for SMEs aiming to increase their competitiveness [3]. Forming a virtual team will provide an opportunity to reduce time to market of new product and respond quickly to the market demands. May and Carter [4] in their case study of virtual teams working in the European automotive industry have shown that enhanced communication and collaboration between geographically distributed engineers at automotive manufacturer and supplier sites make them get benefits are better quality, reduced costs and a reduction in the time-to-market (between 20 to 50 percent) for a new product vehicle.

The specialized skills and talents required for the development of new products often reside (and develop) locally in pockets of excellence around the company or even around the world. Therefore, firms, have no choice but to disperse their new product units to access such dispersed knowledge and skills [5]. Successful NPD requires firms to develop routines and practices to collaborate with suppliers, customers, and internal cross-functional employee teams [6]. Virtualization in NPD has recently started to make serious headway due to developments in technologyvirtuality in NPD now is technically possible [7]. Virtual NPD in SMEs is in its infancy in developing countries, and limited research has been done on introduction of NPD in the SMEs through virtual team. So we constituted the topic which is somewhat lacking in the literature as a research gap.

The main objective of this paper is to present a model of critical factors of NPD definition in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) of developing countries. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the main concepts of new product development; Section 3 reviews recently study on the relationship between NPD and virtuality, Section 4 explore the importance of SMEs, Section 5 presents the relationship between SMEs and

Virtual Team, Section 6 describe Research Methodology, Section 7 to 9 are presents Data Collection, Data Analysis and Discussion and lastly Section 10 concludes the paper with some perspectives.

2. What is New Product Development (NPD)?

The literature provided a number of definitions for what constitute a new product development (NPD). Product development definition used by different researchers in slightly different ways [8]. Generally, it is the process that covers product design, production system design and product introduction processes and start of production [9].

Loch and Kavadias [10] in “Handbook of New Product Development Management” define NPD “ consists of the activities of the firm that lead to a stream of new or changed product market offerings over time. This includes the generation of opportunities, their selection and transformation into artifacts (manufactured products) and activities (services) offered to customers and the institutionalization of improvements in the NPD activities themselves”.

According to The Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) Glossary for New Product Development in The PDMA Tool Book 3 for New Product Development [11], NPD defined as: “The overall process of strategy, organization, concept generation, product and marketing plan creation and evaluation, and commercialization of a new product”. Krishnan and Ulrich [12] defined “product development as the transformation of a market opportunity and a set of assumptions about product technology into a product available for sale”. NPD has been described in general form and there is not any specified definition for new product development of SMEs virtual team in developing countries which means what is NPD in SMEs virtual team supposed to be in developing countries? This paper aims to extract the main factors of NPD in selective cases.

3-NPD and Virtuality Given the complexities involved in organizing face-to-face interactions among team members and the advancements in electronic communication technologies, firms are turning toward employing virtual NPD teams [13-15].

Information technology (IT) improve NPD flexibility [16]. The internet facilitates and improves collaborations and thus increases the performance of new products [17]. Furthermore, Ozer [18] conclude that IT undoubtedly has the potentials to significantly improve the new product development activities of industrial companies. In addition, the pressure of globalization competition companies faces increased pressures to build critical mass, reach new markets, and plug skill gaps , NPD efforts are increasingly being pursued across multiple nations through all forms of organizational arrangements [19]. Given the resulting differences in time zones and physical distances in such efforts, virtual NPD projects are receiving increasing attention [20]. The use of virtual teams for new product development is rapidly growing and organizations can be dependent on it to sustain competitive advantage[21]. On the other hand, competitive strategies are forcing companies to deploy their NPD resources globally, thus making collocated NPD teams prohibitively expensive and logistically difficult to manage [22]. Several recent studies deal with the development of new technologies and their impact on new product development among globally dispersed teams [20, 23].

Some studies emphasized the challenges and difficulties experienced by virtual and conventional for new product development teams were not significantly different, although they were greater than the challenges and difficulties experienced by in-house teams [24]. NPD in SME’s virtual team has not been systematically investigated in literature. Only literatures have shown no significant differences between traditional NPD and virtual NPD in general. This paper aims to bridge this gap.

4-Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) SMEs are a major part of the industrial economies [25, 26]. Their survival and growth have therefore, been a prominent issue. The contributions of SMEs to employment and the countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) are significant [27]. Acs et al. [28] argued that small firms are indeed the engines of global economic growth. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) play an important role to promote economic development. Many economists believe that the wealth of nations and the growth of their economies strongly depend upon their SMEs’ performance [29]. In many developed and developing countries, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the unsung heroes that bring stability to the national economy. They help buffer the shocks that come with the boom and bust of economic cycles. SMEs also serve as the key engine behind equalizing income disparity among workers [30]. SMEs seem to be appropriate units to behave like network nodes because of their lean structure, adaptability to market evolution, active involvement of versatile human resources, ability to establish a sub-contracting relations and good technological level of their products [31]. In light of the above, SMEs have advantages in terms of flexibility, reaction time, and innovation capacity that make them central actors in the new economy [32].

4-1-SMEs Definition There are many accepted definitions of SMEs and the classifications vary from industry to industry and from country to country [33]. Table 1 illustrates a summary of SMEs definition in manufacturing sector of the selected countries. Different countries adopt different criteria such as employment, sales or investment for defining small and medium enterprises [34]. At present, there seems to be no consensus on the definition for SMEs [35]. In the absence of a definitive classification, an agreement has developed around the European Commission (EC) criteria for SME classification [33]. This definition adopts a quantitative approach emphasizing “tangible” criteria, employee numbers up to 250 employees, turnover and balance sheet statistics [36]. The case studies employed here are SMEs in the Malaysian and Iranian manufacturer sector are chosen according to the EC definition of SMEs. Table 1 Definition of SMEs in manufacturing sector of selected countries Country

European Commission (EC) criteria

Category of enterprise

Employee numbers

Turnover

Other measures

Source

Small

10-50 employees Fewer than 250 employees Less than 10* Less than 50** 10-100* 50-250** Between 5 & 50 employees

Balance sheet total :Less than € 10 million balance sheet total Balance sheet total :Less than € 43 million balance sheet total

[37]

Medium

Less than € 10 million turnover Less than € 50 million turnover

Small Iran

Medium Small

Between RM 250,000 & less than RM 10 million Malaysia Medium 50-150 employees Between RM 10 million & RM 25 million * Definition of SMEs according to “The Central Bank of Iran [38]” ** Definition of SMEs according to “Iran Small Industries & Industrial Parks Organization [39]”

[37] [38] [39] [38] [39] [40]

[40]

5-SMEs and Virtual Team Past literature often hypothesized that SME did not innovate in formally recognized ways, and that they made much more extensive use of external linkages [41-43]. The SME is not a scaled-down version of a large company. It has different characteristics that distinguish them from large corporations and that can of course change across different countries and cultures; they are generally independent, multi-tasking, cash-limited and based on personal relationships and informality , as well as actively managed by the owners, highly personalized, largely local in their area of operation and largely dependent on internal sources to finance growth [44]. To survive in the global economy SMEs have to improve their products and processes exploiting their intellectual capital in a dynamic network of knowledge-intensive relations inside and outside their borders [45]. So if small firms want to make a step change in their technological and innovation base, they may have to rethink their approach to cooperation [46].

SMEs need to focus on core competences for efficiency matters; they need to cooperate with external partners to compensate for other competences and resources. This is especially the case in the field of new product development , where SMEs face specific problems in comparison to large firms [47].

Despite the widespread publicity of information technology, the application of Internet technology to upgrade and enhance the product design and business operation by most enterprises, especially for the small and medium sized enterprises, is still at its infancy [48]. The SMEs are one of the sectors that have a strong potential to benefit from advances in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the adaptation of new business modes of operation [49]. The use of ICTs can be considered as key factors for innovation and entrepreneurship. ICTs are a must for SMEs to innovate [50]. It is especially urgent for SMEs to construct a service platform of networked to speed up the product development process [51]. Collaboration is particularly critical when SME’s are involved with the aim of developing new products [52].

The success of developed countries can be attributed to factors relating to the emergence of new business technologies and cultures, such as, virtual technology. This constituted the soft-technology complex that provided

the environment for innovation and the effective application of technologies [53]. Developing countries are, on the other hand, characterized by the absence of soft technology and limited abilities to make effective and efficient use of the technologies they obtain through a variety of transfer mechanisms, and to innovate and compete in the global market. Many SMEs have difficulties achieving successful innovation, despite having significant investment in research and development [54]. Gassmann and Keupp [55] found that managers of SMEs should invest less in tangible assets, but more in those areas that will directly generate their future competitive advantage (e.g., in R&D to generate knowledge, and in their employees’ creativity to stimulate incremental innovations in already existing technologies). Moreover, the Web-because of its easy access to large numbers of potential customers at reasonable cost may especially aid smaller companies that have not enjoyed the same national reach or financial resources as larger companies for market research [56]. Levy et al. [57] state that SMEs are knowledge creators but are poor in knowledge retention. They need to be proactive in knowledge sharing arrangements to recognize that knowledge has value and the value added is derived from knowledge exchange [58].

6-Research Methodology This research has been applied a statistical approach based on the factor analysis and research framework. Factor analysis is a technique attempts to identify underlying variables, or factors, that explain the pattern of correlations within a set of observed variables. Factor analysis is often used in data reduction to identify a small number of factors that explain most of the variance that is observed in a much larger number of manifest variables. Factor analysis is also suitable for analyzing the patterns of complex, multidimensional relationships encountered by researchers [37]. An online questionnaire was designed and base on main factors in NPD, 20 questions derived from literature review. To help disentangle the concepts of new product development in virtual teams of SMEs, 20 individual criteria asked from respondents. These criterions have been grouped together through factor analysis to form the critical factors in the definition of NPD in virtual teams. The respondent asked a series of questions such as NPD1: “Based on your (organization’s) what is the definition of a new product/process development? Is the use of things already known (reverse Engineering)?”

Table 2 20 criteria of the NPD definition Question NPD1

Criteria Whole R&D activities

NPD2

The use of things already known (Reverse Engineering)

NPD3

Making use of existing technologies (Adaptation)

NPD4

Increase efficiency of product

NPD5

Meet the role and regulation

NPD6

Improvement in product functionality/quality

NPD7

Improvements in elements of product technologies

NPD8

Major innovation in product technologies

NPD9

Major innovation in products as a whole

NPD10

Creation of new product concepts

NPD11

Improvement in product process

NPD12

Reduction in quality problems

NPD13

Surprise or delight customers

NPD14

Replacing products are being phased out

NPD15

Extending product range

NPD16

Reducing production lead times

NPD17

Gaining new markets or market share

NPD18

Reducing labor costs

NPD19

Reducing materials consumption

NPD20

Reducing energy consumption

7-Data Collection The research target was manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia and Iran that were using virtual teams in their organization. In order to understand the viewpoints of SMEs on NPD definition an on line questionnaire has been sent to relevant SMEs in both countries. The rapid expansion of Internet users has given web-based surveys the potential to become a powerful tool in survey research [59]. Denscombe [60] findings encourage social researchers to use web-based questionnaires with confidence and the data produced by web-based questionnaires is equivalent to that produced by paper-based questionnaires. Other authors emphasized that the data provided by Internet methods are of at least as good quality as those provided by traditional paper-and-pencil methods [61, 62].

The main sampling target was managing director, R&D manager, the new product development manager, project and design manager and appropriate people who were most familiar with the NPD in the firm. For better understanding the questionnaire has been prepared in two different languages English and Persian. The Iranian respondents were able to select either English version or Persian version of the questionnaire. 3625 emails have sent to relevant SMEs and 686 of them clicked the online web page and answered the questionnaire. Out of 686 respondents 190 SMEs responded completely and the rest answered partially. Table 3 summarized online survey data collection. Only 121 firms were met the criteria of SMEs definition in this research so the rest of responded deducted from factor analysis. A cross-tabulation descriptive statistics employed to find the frequency and relationship between the country and virtuality as illustrate in Table 4.

Table 3 Summarized online survey data collection Numbers of emails sent to Malaysian (M) SMEs

Numbers of emails sent to Iranian (I) SMEs

Total of emails sent to SMEs

Total Responses (Click the online web page)

Total Responses/ Sent (%)

Total Completed

Total Completed/ Sent (%))

Total Completed/ Received (%)

2068

1557

3625

686

18.9

190

5.2

27.7

Table 4 Cross-tabulation between country and virtuality Virtual NPD Yes

No

Total

Iran

N (% within Country)

50 (73.5)

18 (26.5)

68 (100.0)

Malaysia

N (% within Country)

19 (35.8)

34 (64.2)

53 (100.0)

N (% within Country)

69 (57.0)

52 (43.0)

121 (100.0)

Country Total

8-Data Analysis In the case of reliability analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha [63] was employed to measure internal consistency of the 20 factors. A reliability test was carried out to ensure that the research finding have the ability to provide consistence results. Cronbach’s alpha for the 20 NPD factors was found within acceptable limits and to be 0.926, which means there was a high reliability for designed questions. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on 20 NPD factors.

Using a Principle Component Analysis with a Varimax Rotation and an Eigenvalue of 1 as the cut-off point [64] and an absolute value of the factor loading greater than 0.5 [37]. The items and their factor loadings after Exploratory Factor Analysis, Eigenvalue, and percentage of variance explained, appear in Table 5. The 20 factors were grouped into five higher level constructs, which had an Eigenvalue greater than one.

9-Discussion The authors attempted to identify and named the confirmed factors based on the principle of being concise without losing clarity of meaning. After extracting the factors, Variables with higher loadings are considered more important and have greater influence on the name of selected reduced factors. The names and contents of five higher level constructs derived are: • Factor 1: It consists of NPD17 to NPD20, which are “Gaining new markets or market share“, “Reducing labor costs”, “Reducing materials consumption” and “Reducing energy consumption” respectively. This factor is named “Process Features” Table 5 Rotated Component Matrix sorted by size

Component (Cronbach’s Alpha) 1 (.850)

2 (.821)

3 (.749)

4 (.790)

5 (.735)

NPD19 NPD18

.792 .762

.134 .287

.248 .232

.218 .103

.019 .227

NPD20

.715 .515

.250 .364

.325 -.052

.142 .282

.135 .343

NPD12 NPD4

.278

.794

.313

.155

.203

.238

.784

.135

.288

.069

NPD5

.203

.754

.345

.105

.237

NPD13

.379

.462

.280

.275

.453

NPD7 NPD2

.144 .372

.141 .218

.721 .706

.512 .148

.089 -.002

NPD3

.169

.258

.670

.165

.219

NPD15

.130

.296

.653

.220

.457

NPD10

.149 .186

-.059 .205

.322 .332

.721 .710

.228 .040

NPD6 NPD11

.206

.393

.136

.668

.041

.528

.308

-.016

.580

.171

NPD14 NPD9

.126 -.016

.117 .237

.542 .180

.267 .546

.649 .604

NPD16 NPD1

.569

.034

.090

.170

.591

NPD17

NPD8

.380 .335 .114 -.133 .569 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

• •

• •

Factor 2: It consists of NPD4,NPD5, NPD12 and NPD13, which are “Increase efficiency of product”, “Meet the role and regulation”, “Reduction in quality problems” and “Surprise or delight customers” respectively. Since NPD12 has been higher loading (0.794) this factor named “Customer demand“.

Factor 3: It consists of NPD2, NPD3, NPD7 and NPD15, which are “The use of things already known (Reverse Engineering)”, “Making use of existing technologies (Adaptation)”, “Improvements in elements of product technologies” and “Extending product range” respectively. This factor is named “Technology Features”.

Factor 4: It consists of NPD6, NPD8, NPD10 and NPD11, which are “Improvement in product functionality/quality”, “Major innovation in product technologies”, “Creation of new product concepts” and “Improvement in the product process” respectively. This factor is named “Innovative process”.

And lastly factor 5: It consists of NPD1, NPD9, NPD14 and NPD16, which are “Whole R&D activities”, “Major innovation in products as a whole”, “Replacing products are being phased out” and “Reducing production lead times” respectively. Because NPD14 has been higher loading (0.649) this factor named “Introduce New Product“.

All above mentioned factors were summarized in Figure 1. This new conceptual model is based on data analysis of survey findings. The conceptual model provides an overview of NPD understanding in SMEs (the ones which are familiar with virtuality) of selected developing countries. Although more than half respondents are working on virtual team bases for new product developments but virtual team application in SMEs is still in infancy. Slightly more than 80% of SMEs have not responded to an email invitation for participating in an online survey (Table 3).

Meet the role and regulation

Increase efficiency of product

Reducing energy consumption

Customer Demand

Surprise or delight customers

Reverse Engineering

Reducing materials consumption

Process Features

Reduction in quality problems

Reducing labor costs

Extending product range

Technology Features

Adaptation

Gaining new markets or market share

Improvements in elements of product technologies

NPD in SMEs Virtual Team

Improvement in product quality

Major innovation in product technologies

Innovative Process

Creation of new product concepts

Improvement in product process

Reducing materials consumption

Reducing energy consumption

Introduce New Product

Reducing labor costs

Gaining new markets or market share

Figure 1 a Conceptual Model of NPD in SMEs Virtual Team (based on research results)

10-Conclusion Factor Analysis provides direct insight into the interrelationships between 20 variables and reduced to five components. First factor which is “Process Features” and it is a combination of “Gaining new markets or market share“, “Reducing labor costs”, “Reducing materials consumption” and “Reducing energy consumption”, is more important than the rest four factors. So managers of firms in developing countries should consider the main factors in NPD. Customer demand (people) and technology features are respectively important after process issues.

Therefore, along with Ale Ebrahim et al. [65] recent research people and process are more important in virtual teams than about technology.

Table 3 shows slightly above 18% of SMEs have been received the online survey email invitation. So it can conclude that most SMEs in selected developing countries are still developing a new product in the traditional way, and they are not adopted with new information and communication technologies. As virtual NPD in SMEs is in its infancy in developing countries, it seems to be a necessary start the introduction of virtual teams in the SMEs. The first step is perceived NPD in this new environment, which is explored in this study.

This study is probably the first to present a conceptual model for NPD issue in SMEs in selected developing countries. The future research needs to be investigated the model and verify it by a larger sample of SMEs from different sectors since this study was limited to manufacturing sector. In a larger sample, it is possible to compare the results between Iran and Malaysian SMEs.

References 1.

Chen, H.H., et al., Developing new products with knowledge management methods and process development management in a network. Computers in Industry, 2008. 59: p. 242–253.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

Mi, X., W. Shen, and W. Zhao, Research on Internet-Based System Architecture for Collaborative Product Development, in Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design II. 2006, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. p. 394-403.

Pihkala, T., E. Varamaki, and J. Vesalainen, Virtual organization and the SMEs: a review and model development. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 1999. 11(4): p. 335 - 349.

May, A. and C. Carter, A case study of virtual team working in the European automotive industry.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2001. 27: p. 171-186.

Kratzer, J., R. Leenders, and J.V. Engelen, Keeping Virtual R&D Teams Creative. Industrial Research Institute, Inc., 2005. March-April: p. 13-16.

Mishra, A.A. and R. Shah, In union lies strength: Collaborative competence in new product development and its performance effects. Journal of Operations Management, 2009. 27(4): p. 324-338.

Leenders, R.T.A.J., J.M.L.V. Engelen, and J. Kratzer, Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2003. 20: p.

69–92.

Ale Ebrahim, N., S. Ahmed, and Z. Taha. A Conceptual Model of Virtual Product Development Process. in 2nd Seminar on Engineering and Information Technology, SEIT 2009. 2009. Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

Johansen, K., Collaborative Product Introduction within Extended Enterprises, in Department of Mechanical Engineering. 2005, Linköpings Universitet: Linköping, Sweden. p. 134.

Loch, C. and S. Kavadias, Handbook of New Product Development Management. 2008: ButterworthHeinemann is an imprint of Elsevier. 560.

Griffin, A. and S. Somermeyer, The PDMA ToolBook 3 for New Product Development. 2007: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Krishnan, V. and K.T. Ulrich, Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature. Management Science, 2001. 47(1): p. 1.

Jacobsa, J., et al., Exploring defect causes in products developed by virtual teams Information and Software Technology, 2005. 47(6): p. 399-410.

Badrinarayanan, V. and D.B. Arnett, Effective virtual new product development teams: an integrated framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 2008. 23(4): p. 242-248.

Schmidt, J.B., M.M. Montoya-Weiss, and A.P. Massey, New product development decision-making effectiveness: Comparing individuals, face-to-face teams, and virtual teams. Decision Sciences, 2001.

32(4): p. 1-26.

Durmusoglu, S.S. and R.J. Calantone, Is more information technology better for new product development?

Product & Brand Management, 2006. 15(7): p. 435-441.

Ozer, M., The role of the Internet in new product performance: A conceptual investigation. Industrial Marketing Management 2004. 33: p. 355– 369.

Ozer, M., Information Technology and New Product Development Opportunities and Pitfalls. Industrial Marketing Management 2000. 29(5): p. 387-396.

Cummings, J.L. and B.S. Teng, Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 2003(20): p. 39–68.

McDonough, E.F., K.B. Kahn, and G. Barczak, An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and collocated new product development teams. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2001. 18(2): p. 110–120.

Taifi, N., Organizational Collaborative Model of Small and Medium Enterprises in the Extended Enterprise Era: Lessons to Learn from a Large Automotive Company and its dealers’ Network., in Proceedings of the 2nd PROLEARN Doctoral Consortium on Technology Enhanced Learning, in the 2nd European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. 2007, CEUR Workshop Proceedings.: Crete, Greece.

Susman, G.I., et al., Recognition and reconciliation of differences in interpretation of misalignments when collaborative technologies are introduced into new product development teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2003. 20(1-2): p. 141–159.

Jeong, I., A cross-national study of the relationship between international diversification and new product performance. International Marketing Review, 2003. 20(4): p. 353-376.

Martinez-Sanchez, A., et al., Teleworking and new product development. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2006. 9(2): p. 202-214.

25. Robles-Estrada, C. and M. Gómez-Suárez. E-Business Adoption in the SME’s: towards an Integrated Theoretical-Empirical Research Framework. in The 10th International Conference on Global Business & Economic Development , Creativity & Innovation: Imperatives for Global Business and Development.

2007. Ryukoku University Fukakusa Campus, Kyoto, Japan.

26. Eikebrokk, T.R. and D.H. Olsen, An empirical investigation of competency factors affecting e-business success in European SMEs. Information & Management, 2007. 44(4): p. 364-383 27. Kotelnikov, V., Small and Medium Enterprises and ICT, in Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society and Polity, K. Hak-Su, Editor. 2007, UNDP Regional Centre: Bangkok.

28. Acs, Z.J., et al., The Internationalization of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: A Policy Perspective.

Small Business Economics, 1997. 9: p. 7–20.

29. Schröder, H.H., Past, Present and Future of Knowledge Integration, in Knowledge Integration-The Practice of Knowledge Management in Small and Medium Enterprises, A. Jetter, et al., Editors. 2006, Physica-Verlag HD. p. 175-191.

30. Choi, T.Y., Korea's Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Unsung Heroes or Economic Laggards?

Academy of Management Executive, 2003. 17(2).

31. Mezgar, I., G.L. Kovacs, and P. Paganelli, Co-operative production planning for small- and medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics, 2000. 64: p. 37-48.

32. Raymond, L. and A.M. Croteau, Enabling the strategic development of SMEs through advanced manufacturing systems A configurational perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2006.

106(7): p. 1012-1032.

33. O’Regan, N. and A. Ghobadian, Testing the homogeneity of SMEs - The impact of size on managerial and organisational processes. European Business Review, 2004. 16(1).

34. Ayyagari, M., T. Beck, and A. Demirguc-Kunt, Small and Medium Enterprises Across the Globe. Small Business Economics, 2007. 29(4): p. 415-434.

35. Deros, B.M., S.M. Yusof, and A.M. Salleh, A benchmarking implementation framework for automotive manufacturing SMEs. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 2006. 13(4).

36. Tiwari, R. and S. Buse, Barriers to Innovation in SMEs: Can the Internationalization of R&D Mitigate Their Effects?, in Proceedings of the First European Conference on Knowledge for Growth: Role and Dynamics of Corporate R&D (CONCORD 2007). 2007: Seville, Spain. p. 1-32.

37. Fathian, M., P. Akhavan, and M. Hoorali, E-readiness assessment of non-profit ICT SMEs in a developing country: The case of Iran. Technovation, 2008. 28(9): p. 578-590.

38. CBI. SMEs Definition in Iran.

2009 [cited 2009 28, August, 2009]; Available from: http://tsd.cbi.ir/IntTSD/EnDisplay/Display.aspx.

39. ISIPO. Iran Small Industries & Industrial Parks Organization. 2009 [cited 2009 28, August, 2009]; Available from: http://www.iraniec.ir/Site.aspx?ParTree=13181311.

40. NSDC, Definitions for Small and Medium Enterprises in Malaysia, N.S.D. Council, Editor. 2005, Secretariat to National SME Development Council-Bank Negara Malaysia.

41. Laforet, S. and J. Tann, Innovative characteristics of small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 2006. 13(3): p. 363 - 380.

42. Hoffman, K., et al., Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review.

Technovation 1998. 18(1): p. 39-55 43. Barnett, E. and J. Storey, Managers’ accounts of innovation processes in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 2000. 7(4): p. 315 - 324.

44. Perrini, F., A. Russo, and A. Tencati, CSR Strategies of SMEs and Large Firms. Evidence from Italy.

Journal of Business Ethics, 2007. 74(3): p. 285-300.

45. Corso, M., et al., Knowledge management configurations in Italian small-to-medium enterprises. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2003. 14(1): p. 46-56.

46. Hanna, V. and K. Walsh, Small Firm Networks: A Successful Approach to Innovation? . R&D Management, 2002. 32(3): p. 201-207.

47. Pullen, A., et al., Configurations of external SME characteristics to explain differences in innovation performance, in High Technology Small Firms Conference 2008: Twente University,Netherlands.

48. Zhan, H.F., et al., A web-based collaborative product design platform for dispersed network manufacturing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2003. 138(1-3): p. 600-604.

49. Miles, R.E., C.C. Snow, and G. Miles, TheFuture.org Long Range Planning, 2000. 33(3): p. 300-321.

50. Redoli, J., et al., A model for the assessment and development of Internet-based information and communication services in small and medium enterprises Technovation, 2008. 28(7): p. 424-435.

51. Lan, H., et al., A web-based manufacturing service system for rapid product development Computers in Industry, 2004. 54(1): p. 51 - 67 52. Romero, F., et al., Activity modelling in a collaborative ceramic tile design chain: an enhanced IDEF0 approach. Research Engineering Design, 2008. 19: p. 1-20.

53. Zhouying, J., Globalization, technological competitiveness and the ‘catch-up’ challenge for developing countries: some lessons of experience. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 2005. 4(1): p. 35-46 54. O’Regan, N., A. Ghobadian, and M. Sims, Fast tracking innovation in manufacturing SMEs Technovation, 2006. 26(2): p. 251-261 55. Gassmann, O. and M.M. Keupp, The competitive advantage of early and rapidly internationalising SMEs in the biotechnology industry: A knowledge-based view. Journal of World Business, 2007. 42(3): p. 350366.

56. Buyukozkan, G., A. Baykasoglu, and T. Dereli, Integration of Internet and web-based tools in new product development process. Production Planning & Control, 2007. 18(1): p. 44-53.

57. Levy, M., C. Loebbecke, and P. Powell, SMEs, co-opetition and knowledge sharing: the role of information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 2003. 12(1): p. 3-17 58. Egbu, C.O., S. Hari, and S.H. Renukappa, Knowledge management for sustainable competitiveness in small and medium surveying practices. Structural Survey, 2005. 23(1): p. 7-21.

59. Sills, S.J. and C. Song, Innovations in Survey Research: An Application of Web-Based Surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 2002. 20(1): p. 22-30.

60. Denscombe, M., Web-Based Questionnaires and the Mode Effect: An Evaluation Based on Completion Rates and Data Contents of Near-Identical Questionnaires Delivered in Different Modes. Social Science Computer Review, 2006. 24(2): p. 246-254.

61. Gosling, S.D., et al., Should We Trust Web-Based Studies? A Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions About Internet Questionnaires. American Psychologist, 2004. 59(2): p. 93-104.

62. Deutskens, E., K. de Ruyter, and M. Wetzels, An assessment of equivalence between online and mail surveys in service research. Journal of Service Research, 2006. 8(4): p. 346-355.

63. Cronbach, L., Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951. 16(3): p. 297-334.

64. Akgün, A.E., M. Dayan, and A.D. Benedetto, New product development team intelligence: Antecedents and consequences Information & Management 2008. 45(4): p. 221-226.

65. Ale Ebrahim, N., S. Ahmed, and Z. Taha, Virtual Teams: a Literature Review. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2009. 3(3): p. 2653-2669,.